Human rights form a political, legal, and moral consensus which appears to enjoy global acceptance. At the same time difficulties in implementing these rights and their claim to universality raise doubts about and attract criticism of the legitimacy of human rights.
Showing posts with label adaptation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label adaptation. Show all posts
Monday, 16 January 2017
How can we justify human rights?
an article by Peter G. Kirchschlaeger
(University of Lucerne, Switzerland) published in
International Journal of Human Rights and Constitutional Studies Volume 4 Number 4 (2016)
Abstract
Human rights form a political, legal, and moral consensus which appears to enjoy global acceptance. At the same time difficulties in implementing these rights and their claim to universality raise doubts about and attract criticism of the legitimacy of human rights.
Such reactions are bolstered by the obligation to remain coherent with the core concept of the autonomy of the individual. Human rights therefore need a moral justification because autonomy requires justification of the reason why one's freedom should be restricted by human rights.
These challenges lead to the question of how human rights can be justified.
My paper will start by discussing some attempts to justify human rights. Based on this, the necessary characteristics of a justification of human rights will be analysed. A model of justification of human rights which is based on the principle of vulnerability will then be introduced. This approach to justifying human rights will then be applied with a specific human right - the right to own property.
The paper will then explore the concept of adaptation supporting the discourse about the justification of human rights. Finally, some closing remarks will try to identify the added value of this approach for justifying human rights.
Human rights form a political, legal, and moral consensus which appears to enjoy global acceptance. At the same time difficulties in implementing these rights and their claim to universality raise doubts about and attract criticism of the legitimacy of human rights.
Thursday, 3 May 2012
The impact of life events on job satisfaction
an article by Yannis Georgellis (Kingston University London), Thomas Lange (Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia) and Vurain Tabvuma (University of Surrey, Guildford) published in Journal of Vocational Behavior Volume 80 Issue 2 (April 2012)
Abstract
Employing fixed effects regression techniques on longitudinal data, we investigate how life events affect employees’ job satisfaction.
Unlike previous work-life research, exploring mostly contemporaneous correlations, we look for evidence of adaptation in the years following major life events. We find evidence of adaptation following the first marriage event, but we find that the birth of the first child has a long-lasting impact on employees’ job satisfaction. Our findings also suggest that there is a general boost in job satisfaction prior to first marriage and to a lesser extent prior to the birth of the first child, consistent with evidence of anticipation.
Accordingly, our study provides some of the first evidence on the dynamic effect of non-work related factors on job satisfaction and it introduces a novel methodology and a new perspective for investigating the dynamic interaction between the work and life domains.
Abstract
Employing fixed effects regression techniques on longitudinal data, we investigate how life events affect employees’ job satisfaction.
Unlike previous work-life research, exploring mostly contemporaneous correlations, we look for evidence of adaptation in the years following major life events. We find evidence of adaptation following the first marriage event, but we find that the birth of the first child has a long-lasting impact on employees’ job satisfaction. Our findings also suggest that there is a general boost in job satisfaction prior to first marriage and to a lesser extent prior to the birth of the first child, consistent with evidence of anticipation.
Accordingly, our study provides some of the first evidence on the dynamic effect of non-work related factors on job satisfaction and it introduces a novel methodology and a new perspective for investigating the dynamic interaction between the work and life domains.
Monday, 26 September 2011
Policy in Action: Stories on the Workplace Accommodation Process
an article by Janikke Solstad Vedeler (Norwegian Social Research-NOVA, Oslo, Norway) and Naomi Schreuer (University of Haifa, Israel) published in Journal of Disability Policy Studies Volume 22 Number 2 (September 2011)
Abstract
Workplace accommodation is an important measure to ensure equal employment opportunities for people with disabilities. Substantial research has investigated workplace accommodations in the United States. This article represents a first step in exploring the complexities of workplace accommodation from a cross-national perspective. Drawing on 29 qualitative interviews with employed Americans and Norwegians with mobility disabilities, we investigated similarities and differences in experiences with accommodation provision. Two main similarities emerged: Many of the American and Norwegian interviewees made use of accommodations, and the employer played an important role in the provision process in both countries. Concerning the particular role of the employer, two main differences emerged: American interviewees’ accounts of obstacles to a smooth accommodation process were related to the redistribution agent (i.e., the employer). In Norway, employers can either provide the accommodation themselves or make use of subsidized public services. When the employer chose to make use of public services, Norwegian interviewees reported a slow process and obstacles that were related to the recognition of eligibility, which rests on medical assessment. The article reveals a common vulnerability among people with disabilities when dependent on the recognition of their needs and effective provision of workplace accommodation to be competitive employees.
Abstract
Workplace accommodation is an important measure to ensure equal employment opportunities for people with disabilities. Substantial research has investigated workplace accommodations in the United States. This article represents a first step in exploring the complexities of workplace accommodation from a cross-national perspective. Drawing on 29 qualitative interviews with employed Americans and Norwegians with mobility disabilities, we investigated similarities and differences in experiences with accommodation provision. Two main similarities emerged: Many of the American and Norwegian interviewees made use of accommodations, and the employer played an important role in the provision process in both countries. Concerning the particular role of the employer, two main differences emerged: American interviewees’ accounts of obstacles to a smooth accommodation process were related to the redistribution agent (i.e., the employer). In Norway, employers can either provide the accommodation themselves or make use of subsidized public services. When the employer chose to make use of public services, Norwegian interviewees reported a slow process and obstacles that were related to the recognition of eligibility, which rests on medical assessment. The article reveals a common vulnerability among people with disabilities when dependent on the recognition of their needs and effective provision of workplace accommodation to be competitive employees.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
